Better late than never, here you go, a new Open Thread to start the month and end the week!

Mark Easton, the BBC’s immigration cheerleader, has leapt upon some research about ‘Diversity’ and manages to put a classic BBC spin on it.

Unfortunately the ‘research’ tells us nothing that you couldn’t dream up yourself….i.e. that where communities are segregated, separated into different races and religions, things will fall apart as a ‘society’.

Conversely where there is no segregation and everyone mingles without adopting the identity politics so beloved of the likes of those employed in the BBC, people just get on with things and generally get on together.

Easton proclaims this as a break through revelation….and then adds his own spin…

What the new research calculates is that ethnic diversity helps improve community life…what this paper suggests is that where you have non-segregated and relatively prosperous communities, diversity is likely to improve community life, not damage it.

Diversity improves community life?  And yet where’s his evidence? In what way exactly does community life become improved?

Maybe he is comparing ‘community life’ in a non-segregated and a segregated society….then there is an improvement…by comparison….but is he actually claiming diversity itself is beneficial and improves a society?  That’s highly subjective.  What is he saying is wrong with the original community?

Is he saying that an all white community is somehow bad, deficient, morally wrong, dysfunctional?  Or an all black society…or a Japanese society?

A rather simplistic and naive, not to say insulting, assertion to say that a few black faces improves a society just because they’re black.

Even a completely white community is ‘diverse’….having a vast array of different ‘white’ people…not to mention body types, religions, political views, languages, accents, social groupings, fashions, music, football teams etc etc…and of course they may themselves not be ‘British’.

Ridiculous to lump all Whites together as one distinct and well defined group that needs to be leavened by a bit of colour to make them less racist…which they obviously are, being hideously white….and which is the real subtext to Easton’s comments about ‘improving’ a community.

Easton, with a complete lack of contrition, has finally come round to the realisation that Multi-culturalism is a disaster….because surely that is what this research is showing….the separation of communities into separate, well defined groups, is highly damaging to a society.

Shame the BBC has been pushing that narrative, of multi-culturalism, of identity politics, for years now.

Shame that the BBC has felt it is its job to push that narrative.

Once again the BBC’s interference in politics and society, trying to socially engineer that society in the BBC’s own image, has caused immense damage.

Shame that the BBC seems to be entirely unaccountable and shamelessly unprepared to take the blame for any of its dangerous actions.

Shame no one will take the BBC on and put a stop to their self imposed mission to ‘improve’ society.

Shame the BBC itself seems entirely confused about what its role is:

Mark Thompson proclaiming that:

The BBC is not a campaigning organisation and can’t be, and actually the truth is that sometimes our dispassionate flavour of broadcasting frustrates people who have got very, very strong views, because they want more red meat. Often that plays as bias.

However he also said this:

The BBC is no longer just a broadcaster, the corporation was to be a social force in the land, he said. The corporation was an “important builder of social capital, seeking to increase social cohesion and tolerance”, which in future would try to “foster audience understanding of differences of ethnicity, faith, gender, sexuality, age and ability or disability”…

BBC coming under political pressure to silence climate sceptics (as if it needs it):

From the Guardian:

The BBC has come under fire from the chairman of an influential committee of MPs for favouring climate change sceptics in its coverage – and, according to documents seen by the Guardian, replied by saying that putting forward opinions not backed by science is part of its role.

That has enraged MPs further. Andrew Miller, chair of the science and technology committee, told the Guardian: “At a time when poor editorial decisions have dented trust in the BBC, the organisation should be taking much greater care over the accuracy of its reporting – especially in the area of science where misreporting can cause disastrous results, as the MMR media scare has shown.”

Apparently this is the BBC’s reply and here are some interesting extracts:

The BBC remains committed to the principles, set out in its Charter and Agreement, of due accuracy and impartiality, and to applying them to coverage of all the issues around climate change.

BBC Editorial Guidelines
The Editorial Guidelines (www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines) set out numerous considerations for content producers. To ensure our audience is clear about the background and expertise of interviewees on news programmes, content providers must abide by the following guidelines: We should normally identify on-air and online sources of information and significant contributors, and provide their credentials, so that our audiences can judge their status.
(3.4.12)
We should not automatically assume that contributors from other organisations (such as academics, journalists, researchers and representatives of charities) are unbiased and we may need to make it clear to the audience when contributors are associated with a particular viewpoint, if it is not apparent from their contribution or from the context in which their contribution is made. (4.4.14)

In 2011 the BBC Trust published a report it had commissioned from Professor Steve Jones on the impartiality and accuracy of the BBC’s coverage of science. It covered a range of topics including climate change, his assessment was that the BBC had continued to give undue prominence to climate change sceptics and had not kept pace with the debate: “The real discussion has moved on to what should be done to mitigate climate change. Its coverage has been impeded by the constant emphasis on an exhausted subject whose main attraction is that it can be presented as a confrontation”.

The BBC’s Science Editor, David Shukman, was appointed following the Professor Steve Jones review of the impartiality and accuracy of the BBC’s science coverage. David’s role is described in some detail in the BBC Executive’s follow up report (December 2012): http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/science_impartiality/science_impartiality_followup.pdf.

College of Journalism science training
As part of the BBC’s response to Professor Jones’ report, the BBC’s College of Journalism set up and runs a course called ‘Reporting Science’, which is open to all staff. During the course, delegates discuss issues raised by the Jones report, and work on ways to ensure that future BBC science coverage complies with our accuracy and impartiality requirements. BBC News has made the course
compulsory for assistant editors and above (i.e. all those with editorial responsibility for programmes and web pages), and highly recommended for other grades.

Extensive discussion with scientists and the scientific community took place during the preparation of the course material. Most notably, we spent an afternoon with the President of the Royal Society and Nobel Laureate, Sir Paul Nurse, and interviewed him about science reporting, how science works, pitfalls and opportunities and so on.

The BBC Editorial Guidelines set out our due impartiality and due accuracy requirements. In essence, interviews should be conducted on the basis of reasoned argument. However, so long as ministers have to face arguments based on misunderstandings, even ignorance, they will be given the opportunity to rebut them on the BBC. This is recognised in the Editorial Guidelines, which say “Accuracy is not simply a matter of getting facts right. If an issue is controversial, relevant opinions as well as facts may need to be considered. When necessary, all the relevant facts and information should also be weighed to get at the Truth” (Section 3: Accuracy).

If nothing else it shows just how influential Prof Steve Jones has been in corrupting the BBC’s reporting on climate change…as well as that other climate change fanatic Paul Nurse…who appointed Jones to the Royal Society ….undoubtedly for his good work at the BBC on climate change.

This might also be news to most of us:

But earlier this year in a select committee hearing David Jordan, head of editorial standards, told MPs that the broadcaster had decided not to follow Jones’ key recommendations on climate change: “[Jones] made one recommendation that we did not take on board. He said we should regard climate science as settled … we should not hear from dissenting voices on the science.”

….Thought they thought it was settled:

The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus [on anthropogenic climate change].

As comedian Robert Webb  re-joins Labour the New Statesman tells us:

With Eddie Izzard and John O’Farrell already among the party’s celebrity supporters, it looks as if Miliband has the comedians’ vote sewn up.

Who’d a thunk eh?

Webb’s move was one of the unexpected consequences of panto dame Russell Brand’s guest-edit of the New Statesman

In the same issue Slavoj Žižek tells us:

“Most of the idiots I know are academics”

He clearly hasn’t met Russell Brand who graced us with a 4,000 word polemic in the New Statesman:

Russell Brand on revolution: “We no longer have the luxury of tradition”

Essentially it says… Tories…boo hiss…Occupy and looting rioters… hurrah!

Take to the streets kids!  Revolution is the solution.

He doesn’t get round to telling us what comes after the revolution.

Direct from the mind of Russell Brand:

Meditate, direct our love indiscriminately and our condemnation exclusively at those with power. Revolt in whatever way we want, with the spontaneity of the London rioters, with the certainty and willingness to die of religious fundamentalists or with the twinkling mischief of the trickster.

Great though that the BBC thinks his drug addled brain has produced such original thought that he merits a place not only on one of the supposedly prestigious current affairs programmes, Question Time, but also grants him an audience on Newsnight.

I imagine this is Ian Katz trying to connect with the Kidz and shore up his dwindling audience.

Rather than bore you with Brand’s appearance on Newsnight here’s Brand as you’ve never seen him before (it’s kind of not very PC….don’t say you’ve not been warned):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Nvg3S4xn8A

It’s him isn’t it?

I can see Monday’s Open Thread is overflowing so here’s a new one to see us through to the end of the month!

I haven’t watched this yet:

Quitting the English Defence League: When Tommy Met Mo

…..but Douglas Murray has a write up in the Spectator:

‘When Tommy met Mo’ revealed how far we have to travel before Islamism is uprooted

Islamic extremism is not only a policing fault. It is also the fault of ‘Muslim leaders’ and others. It remains a melancholy fact that very few actual Muslim ‘leaders’ or individuals are willing to properly deal with the priorities we all face in the appropriate order. Many spend so much of their energies criticising ‘Islamophobia’ that they leave themselves only the occasional moment to nod to their disagreements with the fundamentalists in their own faith. If rather than spending 95 per cent of their time criticising the EDL and so-called ‘Islamophobes’ these people actually spent 95 per cent of their time not just criticising but actually stopping the extremists in their own religion and perhaps the remaining 5 per cent defending their religion against its perceived critics then not only might the primary problem be solved but we wouldn’t suffer such secondary problems either.

Murray notes this interesting reaction from a ‘moderate’ Muslim to a suggestion that the fundamental texts of Islam need to change:

There was a fascinating moment of congruence towards the end when Muslims and non-Muslims agreed on the need to tackle Islamic extremists. Then Robinson said that one of the things that Muslims must do is to tackle the problems in Islam’s foundational texts – at which point one of those Muslims who had previously been in agreement with him became furious with anger.

Which brings me onto this from the BBC:

Thinking Aloud and Muslim fundamentalism.

Muslims against Muslim Fundamentalism – Laurie Taylor talks to Karima Bennoune, US Professor of Law and author of a groundbreaking book which addresses resistance to religious extremism in Muslim majority contexts.

Once again the BBC discusses ‘Islam’ but practices a sleight of hand….redefining Islam as something not as it is actually described in the Koran and the Hadith but as whatever someone thinks it is….a spiritual religion of peace and tolerance….there is no single definition of Islam apparently.

If you know anything about Islam you will know that is impossible….there can be only one Islam.  That is the whole point of the religion (and why Sunnis attack Shias and Ahmadis etc who aren’t considered Muslims).  That was why it was revealed to Mohammed….because the Christians and Jews had corrupted their own scriptures and become divided into different sects worshipping God in many different ways….to his annoyance.

Therefore claiming Islam is whatever you want it to be, or that you can reform it, is nonsense.

Islam is what the Koran says it is.

Anything else isn’t Islam, and if you don’t follow the Koran you are not a Muslim.

Here is Karima Bennoune‘s lecture upon which the interview is based:

“Your Fatwa Does Not Apply Here”: the human rights struggle against Muslim fundamentalism

It is interesting if you get over the obvious problem….as mentioned above…she claims to be a Muslim…but here denounces much of what makes Islam ‘Islam’.

First thing of note is in the introduction when Fundamentalist Islam is described as coming from the Muslim ‘Far Right’.

Bennoune herself uses this description and states that the Muslim Brotherhood are no different to the Greek ‘Golden Dawn’ party…except whilst the BBC issues ‘warnings from history’ about the Neo-Nazi Far Right in Europe they ignore or even cheerlead the Muslim Brotherhood’s extremism.

She claims that the Right in the West believe all Muslims support terrorism.

She claims that the Left think terrorism is blow back…a reflection of genuine Muslim grievances and is therefore acceptable.

But she says the real victims of that terrorism, the vast majority, are Muslims….and they are ignored by the West.

Is that true?  Are they ignored?  Not really…just look at the Left’s reaction to casualties in Iraq or caused by drone strikes….of course that is purely political point scoring rather than genuine concern for the actual victims…so perhaps she has a point.

She asks ‘why are all those Muslims who stand up to fundamentalism ignored by the West‘?

She says there is a failure in the West to understand what Islamism means for the human rights of other Muslims….and Islamism isn’t the same as Islam …of course!

That raises a question…..the Koran lays out the fundamentals of Islamic ideology….therefore is she saying the Koran and its teachings undermines human rights?

She must mean that….because she goes on to say that the problem is not just the violence but also the ‘moderate’ ideology being propagated.

She also lays into the West for supporting the Fundamentalists, in Afghanistan against the Soviets for example…but also for supporting regimes like Saudi Arabia which is spending huge amounts of money spreading fundamentalist Islam around the world…including of course the UK.

But of course she claims that Fundamentalist Islam is not the true Islam which is a religion of peace and tolerance.

And yet every word she utters denies that statement….she attacks what are established Islamic laws and values as ‘unIslamic’.

And that is the same position that the BBC takes.

Which is ironic because she does exactly what she accuses others of doing…by ignoring the true cause of the violence and intolerance.

It is curious that Tommy Robinson, who was basically reading from the same script as Bennoune, was denounced as an extremist…..and even now when he has said his marching days are over he is criticised for not renouncing his anti-Islamic fundamentalist beliefs…and yet they are the same beliefs as many of those held by those the BBC present as respectable, spiritual, true representatives of Islam…..as Douglas Murray noted…the reaction of a ‘moderate ‘ Muslim was ‘furious anger’ to suggestions of any fault with the Koran’s teachings.

The BBC wants to have it both ways…..’respecting’ what are essentially fundamentalist Muslims and their religion (whilst presenting them as moderate, normal, everyday Muslims) and attacking those like Robinson who criticise their beliefs, whilst at the same time bringing on other Muslims whom the BBC also claims are the true Muslims who wish to reform Islam…..some like Bennoune who are better described as ‘cultural Muslims’ and those conversely like Tariq Ramadan and Mehdi Hasan who are in fact fundamentalists posing as moderates and reformers in order to gain credibility and respectability in the West and be allowed a constant platform on the Media to win influence and spread their message.

So who are the True Muslims?  Those in the everyday community who react with ‘furious anger’ to any criticism of the Koran, or those like Bennoune who are looking to strip the heart out of Islam?

The BBC will have to make its mind up one day and choose….is the Koran ‘Islamic’ or a fundamentalist Far Right text as Churchill claimed…not much different to ‘Mein Kampf’?…“the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message.”

Does the Koran hold within its pages the values and beliefs of the Islamic ideology or not?

The BBC seems confused about that.

Finally she states that she has no truck with the term ‘Islamophobia’...criticism of ‘fundamentalist’ Islam is essential if extremism is to be tackled……hope the BBC are listening.

From the Spectator:

Didn’t the BBC know that Will Straw is a PPC before his dad told them?

Former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was on today’s Daily Politics, gushing with pride that his son Will is Labour’s prospective parliamentary candidate for the seat of Rossendale and Darwen in Lancashire. Yet it seems that this piece of dynastic info was news to Auntie.

Will Straw was on the BBC News Channel this morning, discussing energy prices, and there was no mention of his being a PPC. The presenter simply said, ‘Will Straw is Associate Director of the centre-left think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research.’

Mr S would have forgiven the presenter had he not asked: ‘the Labour Party is talking about a freeze on energy prices for two years. Would you go along with that?’ Straw is a candidate seeking office under Miliband’s banner; of course he goes along with the price freeze nonsense. But he neglected to mention his candidacy, and gave this reply:

‘I think it is an idea that has really caught the imagination of the public. It is the only policy so far that looks like it can actually put downward pressure on these price increases. And it is now in a sense supported by former Prime Minister Sir John Major because the windfall tax that he proposes is pretty similar to a price freeze.’

Tory chairman Grant Shapps declared open season on the BBC last weekend, and it’s sloppiness like this that riles the blue team.

That old subversive Andrew Neil goes off message:

afneil Andrew Neil   Isn’t it difficult for politicians to attack energy cos for rising prices when Commons voted to raise prices by 40% by 2020.

And another subversive, Paul Hudson (via Bishop Hill)

Real risk of a Maunder minimum ‘Little Ice Age’ says leading scientist

It’s known by climatologists as the ‘Little Ice Age’, a period in the 1600s when harsh winters across the UK and Europe were often severe.

The severe cold went hand in hand with an exceptionally inactive sun, and was called the Maunder solar minimum.

Now a leading scientist from Reading University has told me that the current rate of decline in solar activity is such that there’s a real risk of seeing a return of such conditions.

Paul Hudson is not a favourite of the Climate Change alarmist tribe…having previously (2009) stated that there had been no global warming since 1998 and that we may get a period of cooling…here Michael Mann complains (as revealed in the CRU emails):
‘…extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd,
since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from
what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.

We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for
the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?

And at least ITN are fact checking what Ovo Energy are claiming:

itvnews ITV News Ovo Energy boss claims the firm cut prices last year – but firm’s website says it put prices up in April http://t.co/VUnsJU5OHu

Shame the BBC didn’t bother.

There’s no Truth in the News and , for the BBC, no News in the Truth.

You might have thought that something like this would have mobilised the investigative journalists of the BBC:

Miliband urged to reopen union vote-rigging probe: Email cache ‘shows Unite plotted to subvert Labour inquiry’

• Labour leader under pressure to reopen vote-rigging investigation
• 1,000 emails appear to implicate Unite in thwarting original inquiry
• Unearthed by bosses at Ineos, company that runs Grangemouth oil refinery

The Sunday Times revealed that there is a stash of 1000 emails that indicate that Unite did indeed try to rig the election of candidates to become Labour MPs.

 
However the BBC isn’t interested and never were…they were only too happy to announce that there was ‘no evidence’ against Unite when Miliband caved in to their threats and the GMB withdrew its funding of the Labour Party.

Miliband knew, and presumably approved of Unite’s operation from the start…..Party officials in Falkirk reported their beliefs that procedures were not being followed, candidates to be Labour MEPs also complained about Unite’s activities and were told to shut up or face disciplinary action from the Party.

 
The BBC showed no interest in all of that.

 
Just as they show absolutely no interest in these 1000 emails that explicitly indicate that Unite were rigging the election.

 
I can find no reference to the emails at all on the website.

Naughtie interviewed  MP Eric Joyce this morning (Tuesday…tucked away at 07:21) but made no mention of the emails…and when  Joyce raised the matter Naughtie claimed the BBC hadn’t seen them……and then went on to try and pour cold water on Joyce’s claims.
Here is the BBC Website report of that interview:

Monday morning..the storm has not washed the BBC away ..so let’s detail the bias!